Use of FEM in EC7
(Examples on ERSS Design,
Slope Stability and Gravity Wall)
Prof Harry Tan
19 SEP 2014 (AE VERSION)
11/6/2022 1
Outline
• Example 1 - Use in Basal Heave Analysis
• Design Approach Facility in PLAXIS
• Example 2 - Anchored Tied Back Wall
• Example 3 - Multi-Strut Sheetpile Wall
• Example 4 - Cut-Cover Tunnel in DTL2
• Example 5 – Slope Stability & Gravity Wall
• Some Conclusions
11/6/2022 2
Ex.1 Base Heave
Using Plaxis in EC7
Prof Harry Tan
18 April 2012
11/6/2022 3
Outline
• Plaxis FEM to Model Base Heave ULS
• Current Approach
• Example of C908 Floating Design
• DA1 COM1 (Load Factors)
• DA2 COM2 (Material Factors)
• CONCLUSIONS
11/6/2022 4
Justification for Tunnel TERS Scheme
Modified Terzaghi Section T2 Model I
Method (LTA CDC) with c-f reduction
Base Stability by CP4 BS8002 and TR26
11/6/2022 5
FEM MODEL (Unfactored)
20 KPA SURCH (Unfactored)
PLASTIC POINTS
NO WT USE METHOD C TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS
11/6/2022 6
Plaxis Input
• For Stability Check in Soft Clay, best
to use Method C (Total Stress
Undrained, NO need to model GWT)
• Soft Marine Clay has Cu=15 kPa at
top and Cu_incr=1kPa/m, with
Rint=1.0
11/6/2022
• JGP has Cu=300kPa and Rint=0.5 7
FEM Stages Modeled
• Phase 1 and 2 – Current Practice with CP4, TR26 and BS8002
• Phase 3 and 5 – EC7 DA1 COM1*
• Phase 4 and 6 – EC7 DA1 COM2
11/6/2022 8
Current Method (CP4, TR26, BS8002)
Surc=20 kPa (Variable Unfavorable unfactored)
Max heave =106 mm
PLASTIC POINTS
11/6/2022 9
Current Method (FOS)
Basal FOS=1.68 > 1.5 OK
PLASTIC POINTS
11/6/2022 10
Partial factors recommended in EN1997-1 Annex A (+UKNA)
(+ UKNA)
DA2
unsuitable for
numerical
• Easy to factor primary input – analysis
material strengths and actions
• Difficult to factor geotechnical
resistances and action effects
11
Cl. 2.4.7.3.2
What is DA1 COM1*?
• The “star” approach – DA2* and DA1-1* (Apply the Actions Partial Factors directly
on the Effects of Actions, ie BM, SF, Strut and Anchor Force etc)
• To do this, we can only have a single Partial Factor on Actions in DA1-1
• Permanent Unfav=1.35, and Variable Unfav=1.50; to make Permanent Unfav=1.00;
we need to modify Variable Unfav*=1.50/1.35=1.11
11/6/2022 12
DA1 COM1*
Surc=1.11*20 = 22.2 kPa (Variable Unfavorable*)
Max heave =105 mm
11/6/2022 13
DA1 COM1* (Over Factor)
Design Over Factor = 1.67 > 1 OK
11/6/2022 14
What is DA1 COM2?
• Partial Load Factors as in the above table
• Partial material factor =1/1.40 for Su strengths
11/6/2022 15
DA1 COM2
Surc=1.3*20=26 kPa (Variable Unfavorable)
Max heave =230 mm
11/6/2022 16
DA1 COM2 (Over Factor)
Design Over Factor = 1.18
11/6/2022 17
Conclusions
• Current method is to lump global Basal FOS >1.5
• DA1 COM1 use partial factors; load variable unfavorable=1.5; load
permanent unfavorable=1.35; material factors unchanged
• To allow for DA1-COM1 to apply Actions Partial Factors on Effects of
Actions, we have the DA1-1* approach making Factor on
Permanent Unfav=1.00, and Variable Unfav*=1.5/1.35=1.11
• DA1 COM2 use partial factors; load variable unfavorable=1.3;
material = 1/1.4 (Undrained Strength)
• This lead to much larger heave
• DA1 COM2 govern design, but it can lead to savings as Over-factor
is 1.18 > 1.00 required
11/6/2022 18
EC7 Design Approach by FEM
• Plaxis 2014 (AE) facility
• Possible Schemes (or Strategy)
• Example 2 of Tied-back Wall with MC Model as in
Plaxis bulletin #30 2011
11/6/2022 19
What can FEM do?
• For SLS, FEM perform equilibrium analysis to give
realistic prediction of deformation of ground and
structures in the ground (Partial Factors = 1.0)
• For ULS, partial factored loads (increase) and soil
strengths (decrease) will produce unrealistic
deformations. BUT aim is to Check Possibility of Collapse
• But FEM can do ULS check to see that the GEO/STR
limit state with factored parameters can achieve static
equilibrium (NO COLLAPSE will occur). It is this idea that
is exploited in Plaxis Design Approaches – see attached
Plaxis 2011 notes
11/6/2022 20
Possible Schemes (Strategy)
ARUP Strategy2
ARUP Strategy1
• I recommend Scheme 1, and
check only critical stages of a
long list of SLS, where collapse
may be possible
11/6/2022 21
ARUP ULS for staged construction – single propped example
Strategy 1 Strategy 2
Compute using Compute using unfactored
factored strength parameters
• Better continuity
Factor material
and consistency? • Could factor soil
strengths
• Suits some software. strengths or take
• Only one definition another approach
Initialofstate?
soil properties.
• But: conservatism at to 5m –
Excavate
one stage might be
wall cantilevering
unconservative at • Suits some software.
another.
• Combines an ‘SLS’ analysis
Install prop at 4m • Can be used with more
depth
advanced soil models
Excavate to 10m
No further factors Apply factors on No further factors
on strut forces or strut forces or on strut forces or
BMs BMs BMs
22
Work Flow
11/6/2022 23
Example of Tied-back SP Wall
11/6/2022 24
Example of Tied-back SP Wall
11/6/2022 25
FEM Model
11/6/2022 26
ULS using EC7 DA2 and DA3
11/6/2022 27
Analysis Stages
11/6/2022 28
Input Design Approach DA3
• The load factors are
applied to external
loads (point loads and
distributed loads)
• Default setting is
Permanent
Unfavorable
• For any other setting,
user must select in
Calculation mode
when defining ULS
Stage
11/6/2022 29
Input Design Approach DA3
11/6/2022 30
In Calculation Mode: Select DA used
11/6/2022 31
Results
11/6/2022 32
Discussion
11/6/2022 33
Repeat Example 1 with DA1-1* and DA1-2
Actions: A1* Material: M1
Actions: A2 Material: M2
11/6/2022 34
Soil Parameters for DA1-Comb2 (M2)
Materials M2
11/6/2022 35
Stages Modeled (Strategy 1)
DA1-1*
DA1-2
• ULS is done only for the last stage. You can do ULS for every stage if needed
• We will examine DA1-Comb1* (DA1-1*) and DA1-Comb2 (DA1-2) for GEO/STR ULS
11/6/2022 36
Compare Results for Wall Deflection at Excavate 5.5m
• SLS
• Ux=35mm • ULS DA1-C1* • ULS DA1-C2
• Ux=35mm • Ux=77mm
11/6/2022 37
Compare Results for Wall BM (DA1 - Strategy 1)
For Design, DA1-C2 governs:
BM=233kNm/m
•SLS BM = 136 kNm/m
•Bm-design=1.4*136 kNm/m •ULS DA1-C1* •ULS DA1-C2
• = 190 kNm/m •BM=1.35*138kNm/m •BM=233kNm/m
• = 186 kNm/m
11/6/2022 38
Compare Results for Ground Anchor (GA) Loads (DA1 - Strategy 1)
• SLS
• GA=111kN/m
•SLSx1.4 =155 kN/m
• ULS DA1-C1*
• GA=114 kN/m
•*1.35=154 kN/m
• ULS DA1-C2
• GA=146 kNm
For Design, DA1-1* governs with GA Force=154 kN/m close to Conventional Design of 155 kN/m
11/6/2022 39
Compare Strategy1 with Strategy2
Phase 7-11 are Strategy 2 calculations with DA1-2
11/6/2022 40
Compare Wall Deflection DA1-2 for Strategy1 and Strategy2
Strategy 1 Ux = 76.8mm Strategy 2 Ux = 76.6mm
MC model is linear with minimal plasticity end result is nearly the same
11/6/2022 41
Compare Wall BM DA1-2 for Strategy1 and Strategy2
Strategy 1 BM = 232.7 kNm/m Strategy 2 BM = 234.2 kNm/m
MC model is linear with minimal plasticity end result is nearly the same
11/6/2022 42
What is Overdesign Factor for DA1-1* and DA1-2
Run Safety Check after Excavate to -5.5m and c/phi factor is the Over-Design factor
11/6/2022 43
What is Overdesign Factor for DA1-1*
Failure ULS using Plastic Points
and Incremental Displacements
plots
Overdesign Factor =1.44
11/6/2022 44
What is Overdesign Factor for DA1-2
Failure ULS using Plastic Points
and Incremental Displacements
plots
Overdesign Factor =1.15
DA1-C2 governs the Design
11/6/2022 45
Summary of Tied-Back Wall
• It is possible to use FEM for ERSS check of ULS for GEO/STR limit states
• It will be difficult to do so for Gravity type walls; as Resistances/Soil Actions are
not inputs, but outputs that depends on soil parameters as well as water effects
on effective stresses. BUT the same * approach may be used for Gravity Walls,
without the need to look at each specific GEO ULS.
• Can use modified approach of DA1-C1* where effects of Soil Actions are
factored up from SLS results (which is DA1-C1 unfactored, but variable
unfavourable actions partial factor =1.5/1.35=1.11)
• Choice of forces for Wall and Ground Anchor design would be the largest force
of one of 2 possible cases: DA1-C1x1.35 or DA1-C2, and compare with (SLSx1.4,
CONVENTIONAL PRACTICE)
• For the linear MC model, it appears that Strategy1 or Strategy2 will giev nearly
the same results of Wall Deflection, BM or Forces.
• Over Design Factor is an indication of margin of safety above the EC7
requirements
11/6/2022 46
EX 3. Multi layer Strutted Excavation
• ENV Building at Cairnhill/Scott Road junction
• Sheetpile wall of FSPIV section
• 3 layer steel struts; excavate to -3.7m, -5.1m
and -7.5m depths
• Site is deep Kallang soils with UMC and LMC,
sandwiched by stiff F2 clay, bottom is very stiff
OA soils
11/6/2022 47
EX.3 ENV 3-level Struts Excavation
Compare:
•SLS (Unfactored)
•DA1-1* (Actions Var Unfav=1.5/1.35=1.11)
•DA1-2 (Actions A2=Var Unfav=1.3 plus M2=1/1.25 for drained and 1/1.4 for
undrained strengths)
11/6/2022 48
Stages Examined
REPEAT ANALYSIS FOR:
• SLS (UNFACTORED)
• DA1-1*
• DA1-2
11/6/2022 49
DA1-2 at 7.5m FML
11/6/2022 50
Compare Results for Wall Deflection at Excavate 7.5m FML
• SLS (unfactored) • ULS DA1-1* • ULS DA1-2
• Ux=187mm • Ux=189mm • Ux=321mm
11/6/2022 51
Compare Results for Wall BM Envelopes at Excavate 7.5m FML
SLS (unfactored) DA1-1* DA1-2
BM=-266.8 kNm/m
BM=+181.9*1.4 BM=+179.1*1.35 BM=+265.9 kNm/m
=254.7 kNm/m =241.8 kNm/m
DA1-2 governs design BM
BM=-116.8*1.4 BM=-116.8*1.35
=163.5 kNm/m =157.7 kNm/m
11/6/2022 52
Compare Results for Struts Loads at Excavate 7.5m FML
Excavate to -3.7m SLS (Unfactored) DA1-1* DA1-2
STRUT1 =-842.7*1.4=-1179.8kN STRUT1=-809.8*1.35=-1093.2 kN
Excavate to -5.1m
STRUT2 =-955.1*1.4=1337.1 kN STRUT2=-960.4*1.35=-1296.5 kN
Excavate to -7.5m
STRUT3 =-1493.9*1.4=-2091.5 kN STRUT3=-1501.3*1.35=-2026.7 kN
•Upper Struts govern by DA1-1*
11/6/2022 •Lower Struts govern by DA1-2 53
EX.4 Cut-Cover Tunnel at DTL2
SP wall with LSS facing
11/6/2022 54
Stages Examined
Critical Stages after every strut level and excavate to next strut level
11/6/2022 55
Results at FML
SLS (Unfactored) DA1-1* DA1-2
Ux=91.2mm Ux=91.3mm Ux=103.3mm
11/6/2022 56
BM Results at FML
SLS (Unfactored) DA1-1* DA1-2
BM=1.4x1819 = BM=1.35x1821 = BM=2150kNm/m
2547 kNm/m 2458 kNm/m
DA1-1*
governs BM
design
11/6/2022 57
Strut Force Excavate Below SS3
DA1-1*
SS3=780*1.35
=1053 kN/m
DA1-2
For this Case:
DA1-1* and DA1-2
gave very similar
results for SS3 force
11/6/2022 58
Strut Force Excavate Below SS4
DA1-1*
SS4=1243*1.35
=1678 kN/m
DA1-2
For this Case:
DA1-1* and DA1-2
gave very similar
results for SS4 force
11/6/2022 59
Strut Force Excavate Below SS5 to FML
DA1-1*
SS5=995*1.35
=1343kN/m
DA1-2
For this Case:
DA1-1* and DA1-2
gave very similar
results for SS5 force
11/6/2022 60
Summary from EX3. and EX4.
• The two examples showed that for multi-level
struts ERSS, when design is very sensitive to
soil strengths (in very soft Kallang soils), DA1-2
will govern
• When design is not so sensitive to soil
strengths (in stiff residual soils and OA) as in
DTL2 case, DA1-1* will give similar results to
DA1-2 analysis
11/6/2022 61
11/6/2022 62
11/6/2022 63
11/6/2022 64
11/6/2022 65
DA1-1* Approach
11/6/2022 66
EX.5 Slope Stability & Gravity Wall
• Soil is stiff residual silty clay with c’=10 kPa and phi’=30 deg
• Cut Slope of 5m height with 1:2 gradient
• Construct Concrete Cantilever Gravity Wall of 5x5m dimension with 300mm thick
wall and base (E=25 GPa)
11/6/2022 67
Stages Analyzed
Critical Stages:
• Phase 1 – Cut back 1:2 Slope of 5m height to create space for wall
• Phase 2 – Construct Cantilever Gravity Wall with weep-hole drain 1m above base
11/6/2022 68
Results of Slope Cut at Phase 1
Surcharge=10 kPa
Steady-State Seepage
SLS is OK
Max Displc. < 10 mm
11/6/2022 69
Safety Check on Slope at Phase 1
FOS=1.719 > 1.5
11/6/2022 70
Slope DA1-2 Check (Phase 6)
Var Unf = 1.3*10=13 kPa
Overdesign factor = 1.367
Global FOS = 1.25*1.367 = 1.71
11/6/2022 71
Results of Gravity Wall at Phase 2
SLS is OK
11/6/2022 72
Safety Check on Gravity Wall at Phase 2
Global FOS=1.353
11/6/2022 73
DA1-2 on Gravity Wall at Phase 2
ODF=1.067 > 1.0 OK
Global FOS=1.067*1.25
=1.33 close to old method
11/6/2022 74
Effects of Actions – BM of Wall
SLS DA1-1* GOVERNS DESIGN DA1-2 BM=155.8 kNm/m
BM=1.4*190.4 kNm/m BM=1.35*136.2=183.8 kNm/m
11/6/2022 75
Summary
• In Slope and Gravity Wall problems the consideration of Geotechnical
Actions in its components pose severe difficulty in FEM analysis. This is
caused by the fact that rotational body forces, as well as lateral earth
pressures can both be favorable and unfavorable actions within the same
analysis. In such cases DA1-1* and DA2* allows for the Single Source
Principle; where partial factors are applied to Effects of Actions, and Not
the Actions itself.
• Specific GEO ULS mode cannot be imposed in FEM as the failure
mechanism is dictated by the FEM itself. Therefore DA1-2 Check Analysis
when used will usually posed the most critical failure mode that governs
any specific problem.
• Thus, a c-phi safety analysis on a DA1-2 Check will give the Overdesign
Factor of the DA1-2 analysis
• However, design of structural elements may be governed by DA1-1* with
1.35 factor on the Effects of Actions
• Generally, the c-phi safety analysis on DA1-1* will give a Global FOS similar
to the SLS conventional design
11/6/2022 76
